DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE
PRESENT : Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB : PRESIDENT
Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) : MEMBER
Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER
Monday the 30th day of January, 2023
C.C. 132/2014
Complainant
Anil Kumar. M. P.,
S/o. Govindan Kutty Nair,
Ashirwad Hose, Puthiyangadi P.O.,
Kozhikode – 673021.
(By Adv. Sri. P. T. Rajesh & Bhavitha. V)
Opposite Parties
- The Manager,
Al Hind Holidays,
2nd Floor, Landship Mall,
Mavoor Road Junction,
Kozhikode – 673 001.
- The Manager, Spice Jet,
319, Udyog Vihar, Phase IV,
Mursoli Maran,
Tower 73 MRC Nagar,
Main Road, Chennai,
Tamilnadu – 600028.
(OP1 by Adv. Sri. K. M. Ramsheed)
(OP2 by Adv. Sri. Sreehari. P. S)
ORDER
By Sri. V. BALAKRISHNAN.
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:
The complainant along with his Co-passenger Mr. Rajendran had to travel by flight number 1073 operated by the second opposite party from Hyderabad to Calicut on 12/06/2013. They were holding confirmed flight ticket of the airlines operated by the second opposite party. The tickets were booked through the first opposite party. The flight was scheduled to take off by 10.40 AM. When the complainant arrived at the airport at Hyderabad to board flight, it was informed that the flight departed on the same day by 6.05 hours, much earlier than the scheduled time of 10.40 hours. When the opposite parties were contacted he had to face improper and humiliating responses. The second opposite party under any circumstances were never expected to take off the flight before the scheduled time. The mode of contact of the opposite party amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. He had undergone a surgery from Applo Hospital at Hyderabad and was under medical care. The inability to travel in the scheduled flight had created a situation of great hardship and mental pain. The complainant and his bystander had to make alternate arrangements to reach Calicut, for which, huge amount was spent. He estimated the damages caused to him in arranging tickets and meeting other incidental expenses to a tune of Rs. 50,000/-. The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate him for the loss sustained. So he has approached this Commission with the prayer to pass the order to pay Rs. 50,000/- with interest as compensation.
3. The first and second opposite party filed version separately.
4. The first opposite party submitted that he is impleaded unnecessarily in the complaint. He admitted the fact that confirmed air ticket was issued to the complainant on his request for travel from Hyderabad to Calicut by Spice jet flight number 1073 on 12/06/2013 showing the time schedule of departure at 10.40 hours. Along with the booking, the contact number of the complainant was furnished to the airline as per ticketing rules. As per ticketing practice and terms of the carriage of the second opposite party, delay or re-scheduling of the flight has to be advised by the airline to the customer in the contact number provided. The booking agent has the responsibility to provide the contact number of the customer to the airline along with the booking advice and the airline never inform nor has the obligation to inform the travel agent regarding delay/rescheduling.
5. The responsibility of the travel agent is to issue the tickets to the customer with clear advice on confirmation status, schedule and flight number. The contact number of the customer was furnished to the airline along with booking advice. It is the responsibility of the airline to inform the customer regarding any change in the schedule and to ensure that customer had received the information. Hence there is no case to the complainant that there is any deficiency in service by the first opposite party and the complainant is not entitled to any relief from him. In the light of the above facts the complaint is to be dismissed.
6. In the version filed the second opposite party submitted that the present complaint is not maintainable. The complainant and the co-passenger failed to reach the airport 45 minutes prior as to the scheduled time of the flight. Also the changes in the flight time had been intimated to him at the contact number provided. There is no document filed in record by the complainant substantiating the loss suffered by him. Also there is no privity of contract between the complainant and him, as ticket was booked through the first opposite party. It is the liability of the first opposite party to intimate about time changes of the flight to the complainant. He had been told about the same by the main agent of the second opposite party. The complaint may be dismissed as the same being based on false facts.
7. The points that arise for determination in this complaint are;
(1). Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
(2). Reliefs and costs.
8. Evidence consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Exts A1 to A5 on the side of the complainant. RW1 was examined. Ext B1 marked.
9. Heard. Arguments notes were filed.
10. Point No. 1 : The case of the complainant in a nut shell can be stated that the scheduled flight with confirmed ticket was departed much earlier without giving any intimation to him. There is no dispute among the opposite parties that the confirmed ticket was issued. Ext A1, which is the confirmed ticket shows the scheduled time of departure as 10.40 hours. The flight departed at 6.05 hours. There is also no dispute about the time of departure.
11. In order to substantiate the case, the complainant got himself examined as PW1. The case is that flight booked by PW1 and Co-passenger was departed at 6.05 hours on the day instead of the scheduled departure time of 10.40 hours without any prior information to him. Ext A1 is the air ticket from the first opposite party. From Ext A1 it is clear that the ticket is showing Live Status Confirmed with scheduled time of departure 10. 40 hours. Ext A4 is the discharge summary from the Appolo Hospital Hyderabad which shows he was discharged on the previous day and returning home after treatment.
12. There is no dispute that the flight was departed 4 ½ hours before the scheduled time shown in Ext A1. PW1 has categorically denied that he received any sort of communication from the opposite parties regarding preponement of the flight. The opposite parties blame each other for the responsibility of passing the information to the complainant. The second opposite party in the version submitted that the preponement was informed by S.M.S and phone call. But no evidence is produced to show that such a communication was passed to the complainant either through phone or by S.M.S. In the absence of such evidence the fact that proper information was given to the complainant cannot be accepted. Also there is no specific valid reason why the flight was preponed than the earlier declared departure time. The Passenger charter Ministry of Civil Aviation Government of India, clearly states that Air-line will not have the obligation to pay the compensation in the event of force majeure ie extra ordinary circumstances may in particular, occur due to political instability natural disaster , civil war insurrection or riot, flood, explosion etc. In the present case there is no evidence of such incidents.
13. When the passenger pays for ticket and confirmed ticket is issued, the airline become responsible for the transportation of passenger and his baggage. This is covered by both statutes and international conventions. So if confirmed flight ticket is issued it is the duty of airline to see that journey is performed as scheduled.
14. The passenger charter Ministry of Civil Aviation Government of India clearly mention the right of passengers. The preponing of flight without any notice to the passenger who holds a Live Status Confirmed ticket and who reports at airport at per the earlier scheduled time is in the status of passenger who has to face a cancelled flight without notice. As per Passenger Charter referred to above (Scenario I). Even in case, if passengers are informed of flight cancellation less than 2 weeks before but, up to 24 hours of the scheduled departure time, the airline must provide alternate flight allowing passenger to depart as or refund the ticket as acceptable to him.
15. So the airline should had offered an alternate flight. In this case the opposite party No 2 had shown their helplessness to perform as per the Passenger Charter of Ministry of Civil Aviation Government of India. It is submitted by the complainant that he had to face improper and humiliating responses.
16. Ext B1 is the Terms of carriage of second opposite party produced by first opposite party. The same copy is also seen attached along with the version of second opposite party. The clause no 18(a) Ext B1 states that in the event the Spicejet prepones the flight by sixty minutes or more the effected passengers shall be entitled for full refund of the amount paid by them or to be accommodated in alternate flights.
17. The first opposite party had no role in the preponement of the flight. There is no evidence forthcoming to show that first opposite party was informed about preponement of the flight by the second opposite party and there was neglect on the part of the first opposite party in conveying message promptly to the complainant. In these circumstance no deficiency in service can be attributed against the first opposite party.
18. Going through all the evidence in hand we find that the complainant had suffered much inconvenience financial loss and hardship due to the preponement of flight. The reason for the inconvenience and hardship was due to negligent and deficiency in service on the part of the second opposite party. The second opposite party had shown their helplessness to perform as per the passenger charter Ministry of Civil Aviation, Government of India and also by Ext B1. So the complainant has to be sufficiently compensated for the sufferings and financial loss. He is entitled to get refund of the flight charges.
19. In the affidavit submitted the complainant represented that due to the preponement of scheduled flight he had to reach Calicut through Bangalore by bus and had to consult the doctor at Bangalore due to increased pain and had to halt at Bangalore. No such evidences like treatment records or stay at Bangalore are produced before the Commission. As per Ext A1 amount of ticket booking spend by the complainant was Rs. 7,200/- . We find the second opposite party is liable to pay back the booking amount to the complainant. For the mental and physical agony, hardship and inconvenience the complainant should be given Rs. 10,000/- by second opposite party as compensation. The complainant is also entitled to get Rs. 3000/- as cost of proceedings.
20. Point No.2: In the light of the findings on the above point, the complaint is disposed of as follows;
a) CC 132/2014 is allowed in part.
b) The Second opposite party is directed to pay the complainant a sum of Rs. 7,200/- (Rupees Seven thousand and two hundred only) being the amount spent for the flight ticket booking.
c) The second opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation to the complainant.
d) The second opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) to the complainant as cost of proceedings.
e) The order shall be complied with within 30 days of the receipt of copy of order otherwise Rs. 7,200/- will bear 6% interest from the date of this order till actual payment.
Pronounced in open Commission on this, the 30th day of January, 2023.
Date of Filing: 12/03/2014.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant :
Ext. A1 – Air ticket issued by the first opposite party.
Ext. A2 – Lawyer notice dated 21/08/2013.
Ext. A3 – Lawyer notice dated – 29/08/2013.
Ext. A4 – Discharge summary (Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad) dated 11/06/203.
Ext. A5 – Email copy requesting refund send to first opposite party.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party
Ext. B1 – Terms of carriage of 2nd opposite party.
Witnesses for the Complainant
PW1 – Anil Kumar. M. P.
Witnesses for the opposite parties
RW1 – Muhammed Shafeeque.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
Forwarded/By Order
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
